The Trump Card...

[ATeam]

The same could be said of calling those that lean left a socialist or communist. Agree?

It's true of any group of human beings. Whatever the stated purpose or beliefs of the organized group is, there is within the group a range of people who agree and/or comply to one degree or another. Also, people change or act out of character. A church may prohibit adultery and all agree. Then a couple of members commit adultery; at which point opinion divides on how the group should react (forgive? ignore? punish? allow?).

 

[RLENT]

The calls are coming from inside the house:

Special Forces veteran visited Capitol a day before he marched with insurrectionists

Lots of similar stories being reported, cops, a significant number of former, and at least 1 current, active-duty military being investigated as being among the insurrectionists.

Currently elected Federal officials possibly being involved in, or complicit with, recon for the assault.

The Forces of Fascism unleashed against the American people, in furtherance of coup.

 

[RLENT]

Proud Boy "Spazzo" ID'd and arrested:

The Proud Boy Who Smashed a US Capitol Window Is a Former Marine

Feds Track Down Bearded Proud Boy Seen Smashing Capitol Window With Police Shield

From the second article:

In an ominous note, the FBI added that “W-1 further stated that members of this group, which included ‘Spaz,’ said that they would have killed [Vice President] Mike Pence if given the chance.”

An utter disaster, narrowly averted.

 

[RLENT]

Somebody having second thoughts on their Dominion Fraud claims apparently:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1350118480570363913

 

[RLENT]

For the conspiracy fans among us, by the way , I resemble that remark.

Zerohedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

Wondering if these documents will ever see the light of day?

Wonder if the ones that they don't release - because it doesn't fit their agenda of crafting a narrative - will ever see the light of day ?

 

[muttly]

Some are not. Those who flew Trump flags, spent weekends on Trump boat parades, and stood on street corners waving signs while dressed head to toe in MAGA gear are agitated and angry in their walk and talk. They stomp to the mail box when they walked more peacefully before. They wave nervously when they waved friendly before. It's tense. I avoid starting conversations with them when I used to start conversations before. I do that because there is no telling when they will shift into politics and go into a rant.

It's sad. When the last hurricane came through, we helped each other clean up the mess. Now we keep our distance because they have Trump fever which has yet to break.

In our area, most of the Trump flags have come down and the bumper stickers are coming off. But there are those who fiercely contend Trump won the election and are willing to keep fighting to keep Trump in office. As I said above, this is really hard for them. They are clinging fiercely to the story they believe while they watch the world move on as if another story is true.

Well they saw their President undermined for 4 years with the Russian collusion hoax, constant damaging, undermining leaks from people in the resistance that didn't like that he won the presidency , impeachment crammed thru not once, but twice by partisans on flimsy charges. Many of those Trump supporters probably implored those opposing him to stop the madness of constant partisan politics and work together.
But they wouldn't listen. They didn't WANT to listen. Until he was out of there.
Many might be saying to you. You woudnt listen.
Now you're on your own.

 

[Ragman]

Well they saw their President undermined for 4 years with the Russian collusion hoax, constant damaging, undermining leaks from people in the resistance that didn't like that he won the presidency , impeachment crammed thru not once, but twice by partisans on flimsy charges. Many of those Trump supporters probably implored those opposing him to stop the madness of constant partisan politics and work together.
But they wouldn't listen. They didn't WANT to listen. Until he was out of there.
Many might be saying to you. You woudnt listen.
Now you're on your own.

 

[muttly]

I've left the next door folks alone, although I have thought about stopping by and gently suggesting that maybe they might want to consider taking their Trump yard sign down.

Then figured I'd let it alone until after the Inauguration at least.

The other sign is tacked up on a tree, about 10' off the ground at the end of a long drive that goes to multiple homes. Not really sure whose it is, could be one families or multiple.

All the rest of the signs on my street - probably 6 - 8 or so - were taken down shortly after the election, within a couple of weeks.

It's not an easy subject to deal with for some I'm sure.

I'd advise against it. It's really none of your business if your neighbor wants to have his sign on his property. Unless it's against an ordinance that you feel triggered enough to see enforced.

 

[ATeam]

Well they saw their President undermined for 4 years with the Russian collusion hoax, constant damaging, undermining leaks from people in the resistance that didn't like that he won the presidency , impeachment crammed thru not once, but twice by partisans on flimsy charges. Many of those Trump supporters probably implored those opposing him to stop the madness of constant partisan politics and work together.
But they wouldn't listen. They didn't WANT to listen. Until he was out of there.

What would you have had "them" do instead? What would have been appropriate in your view?

 

[muttly]

I heard by Monday.

Or Tomorrow. Fake dossier concocted by Christopher Steele to change narrative of Hillary Email scandal. In his own words. FBI knew was crap from very beginning.
We tried to tell y'all this was a hoax, but you be like:

Dumb And Dumber GIF - Dumb And Dumber Yell Cant Hear - Discover & Share GIFs

Click to view the GIF

tenor.com

 

[skyraider]

What we have here,,,,,,,,,,is a failure to communicate,,,,you think....25,000 TRO0PS, yep there's a man with a gun over there, song...we be in a 3rd world environment now, u remember Central America..............

 

[Turtle]

How would you "test" something which SCOTUS says is non-justiciable ?

You may believe that this issue isn't justiciable, but SCOTUS has never addressed whether someone can be removed from office which they no longer hold, and then disqualified from holding future office. You would "test" it by appealing to the SCOTUS and getting a definitive answer. SCOTUS has made it pretty clear that the House can conduct impeachments any way they like, and the Senate can conduct impeachment trials in the same manner. But they have not addressed if convicting and removing from office someone who is not in the office does, or does not, extend further than the punishment prescribed in the Constitution.

Here's a Reuters piece I just found that details why these issues aren't as settled and cut and dry as some may believe, and it's why I remain not yet convinced. They are unanswered questions that have yet to be decided.

There is one paragraph in the piece that's not entirely accurate:

The U.S. Constitution says there are two ways to punish an impeached official: removal from office or “disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”

The use of the word "or" is incorrect, as an impeachment conviction punishment is, removal from office, or removal and disqualification.

The Senate might be able to disqualify someone from holding future office without a conviction, using the 14th Amendment to so do, but even that's not as cut and dry as it may seem. The Reuters article mentions Victor Berger as an example of using the 14th to disqualify him from holding future office with, "In 1919, Congress used the 14th Amendment to block an elected official, Victor Berger, from assuming his seat in the House because he had actively opposed U.S. intervention in World War I." but the article fails to give details, and Congress didn't prevent him from holding future office.

Congress declared his seat to be vacant, Wisconsin promptly held a special election to fill the vacant seat, and on December 19, 1919, elected Berger a second time. On January 10, 1920, the House again refused to seat him, and the seat remained vacant until 1921 when Republican William Stafford claimed the seat after defeating Berger in the 1920 general election. Berger then defeated Stafford in 1922, and was reelected in 1924 and 1926.


On another fun note, it takes two-thirds of the Senate to convict, 67 out of 100. I'm quite positive there are at least a few Republican Senators who would just as soon see Trump begone, but do not necessarily relish the thought of being on record one way or the other. All they have to do is not show up for the vote. If, say, 10 Republican Senators fail to show for the vote, two-thirds of 90 is just 60. That's a lot easier to reach. 20, 25 don't show up? You see where I'm going with this, right?

 

[muttly]

What would you have had "them" do instead? What would have been appropriate in your view?

Fix their stupidity.

 

[ATeam]

On another fun note, it takes two-thirds of the Senate to convict, 67 out of 100. I'm quite positive there are at least a few Republican Senators who would just as soon see Trump begone, but do not necessarily relish the thought of being on record one way or the other. All they have to do is not show up for the vote. If, say, 10 Republican Senators fail to show for the vote, two-thirds of 90 is just 60. That's a lot easier to reach. 20, 25 don't show up? You see where I'm going with this, right?

That is a possible scenario, yes.

 

[Ragman]

On another fun note, it takes two-thirds of the Senate to convict, 67 out of 100. I'm quite positive there are at least a few Republican Senators who would just as soon see Trump begone, but do not necessarily relish the thought of being on record one way or the other. All they have to do is not show up for the vote. If, say, 10 Republican Senators fail to show for the vote, two-thirds of 90 is just 60. That's a lot easier to reach. 20, 25 don't show up? You see where I'm going with this, right?

That is a possible scenario, yes.

Is it 2/3 of the entire Senate, or 2/3 of those present?

 

[ATeam]

Is it 2/3 of the entire Senate, or 2/3 of those present?

It's 2/3 of those present, as long as there is a quorum (51, the minimum number required to be present to conduct business). The Vice President only votes in the event of a tie vote. So, with the soon-to-happen 50/50 split in the Senate (50 Republicans and 50 Democrats), a quorum can be established by all 50 democrats and just one Republican showing up.

Assuming all 50 Democrats vote to convict:

If all 50 Democrats and 1 Republican show up, a 2/3 vote is 35. The Republican is free to vote no and conviction would still happen.

If all 50 Democrats and 5 Republicans show up, a 2/3 vote is 37. The Republicans are free to vote no and conviction would still happen.

If all 50 Democrats and 10 Republicans show up, a 2/3 vote is 41. The Republicans are free to vote no and conviction would still happen.

If all 50 Democrats and 25 Republicans show up, a two-thirds vote is 51. All but one Republican are free to vote no and conviction would still happen.

If all 50 Democrats and 40 Republicans show up, a two-thirds vote is 61. All but 11 Republicans are free to vote no and conviction would still happen.

If all senators show up, a two-thirds vote is 67. All but 17 Republicans are free to vote no and a conviction would still happen.

This sets up some interesting possibilities. While a lot of Republicans may be secretly willing to vote to convict, all of those dread the backlash that would follow. But if just one Republican is willing to do nothing more than show up to establish the quorum, he or she may be the secret hero to all others. The one can abstain or vote no. The others can "boycott" the vote on principle, thereby allowing Trump to be convicted, while leaving themselves political cover to get through the next election. Also keep in mind only 20 of the 50 Republican senators are up for election in 2022. That puts the election of the other 30 far, far into the future, politically speaking.

Trump's influence is unlikely to last far, far into the future. By that time, there will be a dozen Republicans wanting him out of the way so they can mount their own presidential run. Convicting Trump in the upcoming trial may prove to be far easier than many expect.

It may be happening behind the scenes right now that the Republican senators are talking to each other, looking at their maps and calendars, and developing their way to convict Trump without paying a high political price.

I had not thought of that strategy until Turtle mentioned it. Thank you, Turtle. Fun thought!

 

[RLENT]

I'd advise against it. It's really none of your business if your neighbor wants to have his sign on his property. Unless it's against an ordinance that you feel triggered enough to see enforced.

LOL ... I don't feel triggered about it at all ... I am concerned that they might end up suffering backlash from somebody who is whacked out and pissed off enough about what happened in the Capitol on the 6th to take action. Stands to reason that there are probably folks on both sides of the equation.

You know, given what occurred, by continuing to fly that sign, it might make some folks think someone flying it approves of what happened.

On the matter of ordinances, it used to be in the zoning code here that political signs had a very limited shelf life tied to an election ... and one guy here (two guy Zoning Department) was rather vigorous about enforcing it. He claimed Libertarian Party political affiliation, oddly enough.

But the code has gotten a lot more complicated over the last 5 - 10 years (they adopted a model code) and they seem to change about every year and I haven't been keeping up with it, so no idea what the current code actually is as far as signs go (if any)

 

[RLENT]

Well they saw their President undermined for 4 years with the Russian collusion hoax,

While others watched the President refuse to be interviewed on the Russia matter and give his evidence to Mueller and his team.

FWIW, I don't think the full, complete history of the Russia matter has been totally writ quite yet ... there will be more that comes out. But what has come out already is plenty damning itself.

constant damaging, undermining leaks from people in the resistance that didn't like that he won the presidency,

Leaks happen in every administration. Might be saying' a little something though when they are coming from folks with the same party affiliation.

impeachment crammed thru not once, but twice by partisans on flimsy charges.

You see the charges as flimsy, others see them as quite valid - and not at all, all-encompassing.

BTW - that second time was bipartisan ...

Many of those Trump supporters probably implored those opposing him to stop the madness of constant partisan politics and work together.

And yet were largely silent and totally fine for 8 years while Mitch and his cohorts obstructed the black guy.

What ... 35 investigations or something like that on ... BENGHAZI !!!

Well, the Capitol attack just exceeded that (on American soil no less) ... and the COVID-19 bungle has cost us almost 400K American lives - which is like 6x - 8x all the lives lost in 'Nam ... and 100x on we lost on 9/11 ...

And we still ain't done.

But hey ... some people got a tax cut ... that will expire in a couple years.

And judges ...

 

[RLENT]

Fix their stupidity.

Be careful ... that's a double-edged sword you're wielding there ...

 

[RLENT]

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1350275612431310849

Plead your "persecution" grievance to the wife and children of the Capitol Police officer who defended our Capitol and was murdered by the mob you were a part of.

They'll never enjoy his company again.